Gender‐bias hate crimes: what constitutes a hate crime from a potential juror's perspective?

Abstract

The current study explored hate crime in a nontypical scenario. Label of the crime (first-degree assault vs. bias-motivated assault) and gender of the victim were varied within the context of an attack perpetrated within other gender dyads (i.e., when the victim was female, the perpetrator was male, and vice versa). Results indicated that participants in the assault condition were more likely to find the defendant guilty than those in the hate crime condition. Participants also made differential attributions of victim blame, such that those in the assault condition found the victim to be more mentally unstable than those in the hate crime condition.Hate crimes have been the topic of much debate among

Political Identity, Type of Victim, and Hate Crime‐Related Beliefs as Predictors of Views Concerning Hate Crime Penalty Enhancement Laws

“…Collectively, these patterns extend the limited work examining rationales for hate crime law-related views (Dunbar & Molina, 2004;Plumm & Terrance, 2013). .…”

“…Our work adds qualitative evidence that social justice themes related to gaining justice for vulnerable victims and enhancing punishment of morally depraved offenders drive positive views of hate crime laws. Plumm and Terrance (2013) merely coded differing reasons for support of gender-based violence; we extended pertinent domains of their categorical coding scheme by examining which types of beliefs were associated with hate crime views, confirming the importance of legal, victim, and offender-related beliefs in a hate crime policy context.…”

“…Quantitative data summarized in prior literature (e.g., Cabeldue et al, in press) suggest themes of minority group inclusion, punitive action toward offenders, consideration of victim psychological harm, and deterrence play roles in defining public perceptions of hate crimes. Plumm and Terrance (2013) found that participants were more likely to find the defendant guilty and rate the victim as more culpable when the crime was labeled an assault than when the crime was labeled a hate crime, meaning that participants found the act worthy of assault but not worthy of a hate crime. Dunbar and Molina (2004) examined the acceptance of arguments regarding the support or opposition of hate crime laws in general along six single-item dimensions.…”

“…Confirming this importance, researchers found that agreement with the identity politics argument (which opposes hate crime laws) and rejection of the civil society argument (which favors hate crime laws) related to greater negative affect about hate crime laws. Plumm and Terrance () found that participants were more likely to find the defendant guilty and rate the victim as more culpable when the crime was labeled an assault than when the crime was labeled a hate crime, meaning that participants found the act worthy of assault but not worthy of a hate crime. In the same study, participants listed reasons for their decision of verdict in an open‐ended response, and these reasons were coded into six categories: (1) legal arguments, (2) physical evidence, (3) morality statements, (4) victim‐related statements, (5) witness and/or perpetrator credibility, and (6) extra‐legal factors.…”

“…Based on the previous qualitative analyses (Plumm & Terrance, ; Rayburn & Davison, ), the opportunity to explore reasons respondents provide in open‐ended responses for support, or lack thereof, for penalty enhancement in a particular case. For example, while Plumm and Terrance () did not examine whether qualitatively coded statements predicted verdict decisions, frequencies showed that the majority of the legal arguments were made in favor of a not guilty verdict in a hate crime, and most of the morality statements were made in favor of a guilty verdict. Most of those who articulated legal arguments deemed the crime undeserving of punishment, whereas most of those who articulated morality statements deemed the perpetrator deserving of punishment.…”